Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Thaius]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

Beyond that, you cannot tell me words have no power. Not only would that be easily disproven by pretty much any communication event in the history of mankind, but it's going against communication theory so basic it's understood in grade school. Language is the way we communicate and understand everything in our world; that "word used to define something" is a way with which we ascribe cultural importance to something, a way we determine what we should care about, and why. And beyond that, the concept the word represents is something vitally important to culture and society; the word may be just a word, but it is what we use to refer to an incredibly important concept. That cannot be belittled with any semblance of intelligent thought.

 

[Danzaivar]

Because in 200 years time it won't matter what the opnion of todays populace is. Every new thing is resisted by the first generations exposed to it. It's just a case of waiting it out.

 

[Stoogie]

Games are art, a medium of video, audio and pictures. But in reality anything can be art too.

Don't get me started on previous generations, you know your parents or nans that are generations behind who had less educational resources and less technology, as you would expect that they would repent something that they don't understand and then make biased opinions to feel superior over the new generations, but im sorry to say. with each new generation the majority will be smarter and learn more in a shorter amount of time.

so in otherwords, newer generations > older generations. the human race progresses, not the opposite.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

Beyond that, you cannot tell me words have no power. Not only would that be easily disproven by pretty much any communication event in the history of mankind, but it's going against communication theory so basic it's understood in grade school. Language is the way we communicate and understand everything in our world; that "word used to define something" is a way with which we ascribe cultural importance to something, a way we determine what we should care about, and why. And beyond that, the concept the word represents is something vitally important to culture and society; the word may be just a word, but it is what we use to refer to an incredibly important concept. That cannot be belittled with any semblance of intelligent thought.

I was just stating what I believed to be the reason why most gamers don't care about this issue. I can understand where your coming from though and I wish people would take things like this more seriously too, but that's just what I thought was the general reason people don't care about this.

 

[Johnwesleyharding]

This guy:

I love interactivity. What concerns me is that the "Games are Art" movement has tended to take away creativity and choice, turning the game into a movie or book; a series of cutscenes with gameplay reduced to being a sort of terribly inefficient DVD menu.

I feel that something is being lost in the push towards artistic recognition. Millions are spent on voice acting, on CGI, on ludicrously detailed environments. And yet, the plots get no better, the gameplay stagnates, and the corporate world seeks an ever-lower common denominator to pay for their endless splurging on art. Take a look at those credits sometime.

Broadly, art is something that is created by people that is intended to affect an audience in some way. It raises often very existential questions.
Films, video games, and books affect an audience by presenting a story or message, amongst several other things. The relationship is one-way. With video games, the relationship goes both ways. The audience has the ability to influence the art as it is observed. This adds another way of affecting the audience -- the interplay between the player and the game. The player does one thing, and the game reacts. --The game reacts and the player responds. That makes video-games a valuable and unique art-form for the expression of ideas.

Games heavy on cut-scenes do not take advantage of the potential for artistic expression in an interactive medium. The best argument for games as art hinges on games that are mostly interactive, as opposed to ones that try to mimic other art-forms (e.g. film and television).

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It doesn't matter because what qualifies as "art" is completely subjective. Therefore, there is no provably wrong or right answer. Let's say that I think games are art. And lets say Ebert thinks they aren't. But since art is subjective by nature, neither one of us is wrong. Therefore, we must conclude that the debate is pointless. It's like trying to convince someone that their favorite color is blue, when in fact it is red. You can talk about the benefits of the color blue for as long as you want, but at the end of the day, they'll still like red better.

Pretty much. It's a silly argument to even bring up. Games are made to be played so we can have fun and that's just what I'm going to do. I don't give a damn if it's "art" or not. As long as it entertains me.

 

[Keava]

Simply because i have no use for art in video games. I don't play them for the supposed 'artistic' merits, i play them for my own, selfish enjoyment and entertainment, pretty much the same reasons i watch silly TV series. If i want to expose myself to art (or as you prefer high art) i go to theatre, gallery, museum or any other place or resource that actually offers it.

I don't care whenever you or someone else considers ME or Halo an artistic interpretation of surreal reality issues that trouble modern societies on edge of globalization crisis. For me those are games that are supposed to bring fun.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Interesting idea, but I would have to disagree. Art is not by nature frivolous; it is something vitally important to culture, the manifestation of human creativity and thought. It is only frivolous when misused, but it absolutely is not inherently frivolous, and is in fact vital to human society.

There is a difference between "important to culture" and vital for humanity. Even with something like classing something as important to culture I have to ask how it is important and to whom. Game like experiences would rank near the top of things that countless people in the world would view as being as vital to their identity, throughout history.

In actuality, video games are no longer restricted to being "games," and refusing to consider their existence as anything else would be holding them back. They are now full-blown experiences, capable of communicating a story that directly involves the player, thus increasing the impact and potential it could have as an artistic storytelling medium.

Games have never been "just games" and that is a very dismissive way to view them. There has always been significance in them to the people who make and play them.

Why do we insist on saying we care more about a "good game" than about art? A good game is art; the two are inseparable. Trying to value quality over artistry makes no sense, like valuing taste over preparation of the meal; without one, the other is incomplete.

Games and art have been separated throughout history. In effect, this small war of language over video games is nothing less than people noisily insisting that certain traditions of narratives, not even art history as would be taught academically, are more important than the history of games. The real enemies of gaming traditions and the cultural significance therein are not the people who don't think that games are art but the people who say that games have to be called art in order to be significant.

 

[BeeRye]

snip

I would like you to describe to me how games would scour the soul in a way no other medium can. You say they could do it, and as using it as a point to establish games in art have put an onus on yourself to demonstrate how, otherwise they are merely empty words.

I don't personally understand how games can be art. If the story of the game is good enough to be art, then it is the story that is art. You could print the story and the gameplay would become irrelevant. If the visual presentation of the game is good enough to be art, then these visuals are art. Again gameplay is irrelevant. If the score is brilliant, you can remove it and listen to it, the game is irrelevant.

For a game to be art you have to show me an interaction between the player and the game that you can classify as art. The gameplay has to be art. Is pushing sequences of keys to cause reactions on the screen art? I've yet to see it.

 

[omega 616]

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact

How? As far as I know art plays no role in my life. I watch films the same way I play games, only my experience matters, I don't watch fight club or saw and admire it as art, I enjoy it 'cos it entertains me.

I still maintain my view that, I don't care if games are considered any form of art or not.

EDIT. Even art these days isn't art. It's pretentious crap so if I was to care if games were art or not I would prefer not.

I do not want games to be become pretentious drivel, while "art" critics ponder the meaning of why player is dressed in army boots and a pink dress (too much dead rising 2).

Edit number 2. In your OP you never put even one argument forward that we should care if games should be considered as art, just that we should care.

 

[Deleted]

Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.

For example: graphics, music, story.

 

[kuyo]

snip

I didn't nor will I ever utter that word.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

You have the quotes really off. If I ever caught myself trying to explain 'high art', I would hope someone troll'd me.

Holy crap you're right. Fixed.

Games matter so much that all this talk about art cheapens them and makes them seem more frivolous. Make no mistake, art is pretty god damn frivolous. By holding games up to foreign standards that have nothing to do with the long and rich tradition of games it just makes them seem like second rate artefacts, which they are not. I don't think that it matters if games are art because being a good game is already much more important to me. If art was more important to me then I would be hanging out on some art community site.

Interesting idea, but I would have to disagree. Art is not by nature frivolous; it is something vitally important to culture, the manifestation of human creativity and thought. It is only frivolous when misused, but it absolutely is not inherently frivolous, and is in fact vital to human society.

In actuality, video games are no longer restricted to being "games," and refusing to consider their existence as anything else would be holding them back. They are now full-blown experiences, capable of communicating a story that directly involves the player, thus increasing the impact and potential it could have as an artistic storytelling medium.

Why do we insist on saying we care more about a "good game" than about art? A good game is art; the two are inseparable. Trying to value quality over artistry makes no sense, like valuing taste over preparation of the meal; without one, the other is incomplete.

The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.

 

[2xDouble]

Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].

 

[Thaius]

Oh my god would you please just shut the fuck up about games & art!
This topic comes up at least once a day and has been done to death.

Which is something I addressed in the first sentence of the original post, but this is an important topic regardless. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't post.

What is "Art" is subjective => Arguing about something subjective makes you an idiot => It doesn't matter

Well for one, arguing about something subjective makes you a philosopher, not an idiot.

Seriously though, this is a huge problem. We're focusing too much on the actual definition of art and completely ignoring the fact that certain things are labeled and considered art by the general public. This labeling is vitally important, because it is an indication that the society is willing to take it seriously, and thus more thought and effort will go into many of the works, and innovative risks will be taken where there would otherwise be nothing but repetition of old concepts.

This is not about trying to make various works fit a subjective definition, it is about attaining a social status that allows the medium to be worth exploring artistically. And that hardly "doesn't matter."

Interesting idea, but I would have to disagree. Art is not by nature frivolous; it is something vitally important to culture, the manifestation of human creativity and thought. It is only frivolous when misused, but it absolutely is not inherently frivolous, and is in fact vital to human society.

There is a difference between "important to culture" and vital for humanity. Even with something like classing something as important to culture I have to ask how it is important and to whom. Game like experiences would rank near the top of things that countless people in the world would view as being as vital to their identity, throughout history.

Art is vital to culture because it is the core expression of human creativity, for one. It is the way we explore our limitations and broaden our horizons. Beyond that, storytelling specifically is extremely important, even to those that don't put a huge personal emphasis on it. Stories both define and record the culture in which they are made, and it's well understood that the illustration of a concept through a story is infinitely more effective than simply explaining the concept. I won't go too far into storytelling theory here, but this is basic, widely accepted stuff: art, and storytelling specifically, is extremely important to any society.

In actuality, video games are no longer restricted to being "games," and refusing to consider their existence as anything else would be holding them back. They are now full-blown experiences, capable of communicating a story that directly involves the player, thus increasing the impact and potential it could have as an artistic storytelling medium.

Games have never been "just games" and that is a very dismissive way to view them. There has always been significance in them to the people who make and play them.

But video games have never been taken seriously as competition either, partially because any single-player game is useless as competition (since there are no actual opponents involved) and partially because people are stupid and don't understand the legitimacy of a well-designed multiplayer game. But the point is, your argument is dependent on the same acknowledgement mine is: games need to be recognized by society as legitimate. But apparently while I value their artistic and storytelling power, you value their competitive power. And that's fine: I agree they need more recognition as a legitimate form of competition. But it's incredibly near-sighted and incomplete to only care about the advancement of that one aspect, because that is not all video games are.

Why do we insist on saying we care more about a "good game" than about art? A good game is art; the two are inseparable. Trying to value quality over artistry makes no sense, like valuing taste over preparation of the meal; without one, the other is incomplete.

Games and art have been separated throughout history. In effect, this small war of language over video games is nothing less than people noisily insisting that certain traditions of narratives, not even art history as would be taught academically, are more important than the history of games. The real enemies of gaming traditions and the cultural significance therein are not the people who don't think that games are art but the people who say that games have to be called art in order to be significant.

Again, if games were taken seriously as competition (anywhere other than Korea, at least), you would have a point. As it is, all you can say is that we should be fighting for social recognition of gaming as competition and not video games as art, which, as I mentioned before, is simply an incomplete and flawed view of the issue. Both are important, so don't try to lower one in an attempt to heighten your preference.

Beyond that, it's extremely Ebert-esque to say that simply because games and art have been separated throughout history they cannot be joined now. That's an incredibly restrictive and anti-progressive view of art, and art would not be where it is today if we all had the idea that historical non-inclusion means definitional non-inclusion.

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact

How? As far as I know art plays no role in my life. I watch films the same way I play games, only my experience matters, I don't watch fight club or saw and admire it as art, I enjoy it 'cos it entertains me.

I still maintain my view that, I don't care if games are considered any form of art or not.

EDIT. Even art these days isn't art. It's pretentious crap so if I was to care if games were art or not I would prefer not.

I do not want games to be become pretentious drivel, while "art" critics ponder the meaning of why player is dressed in army boots and a pink dress (too much dead rising 2).

Edit number 2. In your OP you never put even one argument forward that we should care if games should be considered as art, just that we should care.

You personally don't need to explore something artistically for it to be art. But I don't think you realize how important the social status of "art form" is to a medium. You know why you enjoy Fight Club more than, say, Eragon, or your average soap opera? It's because Fight Club is artistically superior (I know artistic superiority is subjective, but this is a rather generally accepted viewpoint). Whether you actually explore or understand it as such, you do have to recognize that its artistic quality is the reason you enjoy it so much. Were it worse in that regard (with a bad story, cheesy writing, or bad acting), you would not like it as much, because it would not be as good. Whether you look at something as art or not, your enjoyment of it is dependent on its artistic quality.

As for your first edit, consider that film is art. Meaning Fight Club is art. If that is pretentious drivel... well, it's not.

What you are talking about is "high art;" a vain concept soaked in hubris and clung to only by those who demand superiority in their area of interest. But that is not what art is.

As for my OP, I meant to argue it once I got some responses. Putting your entire argument in your opening post encourages people to spend their entire first posts trying to tear apart your argument rather than addressing the topic, which distracts from the issue at hand. I have now fixed it by adding Scobie's Rant, because it says it just as well as I ever could.

 

[Thaius]

snip

I would like you to describe to me how games would scour the soul in a way no other medium can. You say they could do it, and as using it as a point to establish games in art have put an onus on yourself to demonstrate how, otherwise they are merely empty words.

I don't personally understand how games can be art. If the story of the game is good enough to be art, then it is the story that is art. You could print the story and the gameplay would become irrelevant. If the visual presentation of the game is good enough to be art, then these visuals are art. Again gameplay is irrelevant. If the score is brilliant, you can remove it and listen to it, the game is irrelevant.

For a game to be art you have to show me an interaction between the player and the game that you can classify as art. The gameplay has to be art. Is pushing sequences of keys to cause reactions on the screen art? I've yet to see it.

Watch Extra Credits. Seriously, the narrative power of interactive storytelling (read: video games) has been discussed and displayed so many times, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it. Just watch this. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives]

I will also post this quote from this article. [http://www.destructoid.com/exploring-i-bioshock-i-s-storytelling-flaws-46498.phtml]

Spoiler: Bioshock Spoilers

"Noninteractivity is used brilliantly within the context of the scene: for perhaps the first time in the entire game, the player doesn?t want to kill Andrew Ryan, but Jack?s violent nature and refusal to question his orders are too much and the player is forced to watch, horrified, as he mercilessly and uncontrollably batters Ryan to death.

"It stands as the single greatest noninteractive cut scene in gaming history. Ever. As a storytelling device, noninteractivity is used as a weapon against the player: you don?t want to question why you?re doing what you?re doing? Fine -- you?re nothing better than a mindless, robotic slave, and you have essentially given up the human gift of choice. Having control taken away is, within the context of the story, a tangible punishment for accepting things on face value and blindly following orders."

As for gameplay itself being art, that's not hard to argue. One approach could be that it is a new way to approach the idea of "art imitating life," in that it is literally an artistic imitation of life and the various actions performed in the game. That could actually be argued very strongly. Beyond that, however, even if gameplay itself is not art, interactivity in storytelling most definitely is. It makes it so that... you know what, just watch freaking Extra Credits. I won't even bother trying to explain it as well as they do.

I will point out, however, that gaming is still a relatively new (and largely due to the lack of cultural acceptance, still largely unexplored) art form. Meaning that, by claiming gameplay as unartistic, you are attacking an area of artistic theory that has not yet been developed. That may make it an easy target, but any sort of victory will be shallow and incomplete.

Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].

See, this person has it right. Good show. And yes, that video displays very well how important it is that video games are seen as art.

The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.

Games are important as well, but as I said to Compute, single player video games contain little to nothing of what makes games culturally important (competition against other worthy opponents), and multiplayer games are not yet culturally accepted as a legitimate form of competition. Meaning that single-player games have little to offer if we are only viewing them as "games," and multiplayer games are in a similar situation as artistic games in that neither of them are culturally recognized, so neither of them will see the advancement and attention they deserve. So really, your argument only comes down to, "We shouldn't be worrying about video games as art, we should be worrying about video games as competition!" It's perfectly valid to value one over the other, but it's near-sighted and ignorant to view the other as not worth exploring.

Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.

For example: graphics, music, story.

Every art form is a combination of other art forms. Are you going to claim music is not art because it involves composition, playing various instruments, singing, and poetry? Is film "not art" because it involves photography+movement, audio, music, acting, writing, and much more? Is stage drama not art because it involves acting, writing, staging, lighting, music, and more? Only with video games do people claim that a joining of various art forms into one cohesive, independent work is not in itself art; it really is an illegitimate argument.

 

[omega 616]

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact

How? As far as I know art plays no role in my life. I watch films the same way I play games, only my experience matters, I don't watch fight club or saw and admire it as art, I enjoy it 'cos it entertains me.

I still maintain my view that, I don't care if games are considered any form of art or not.

EDIT. Even art these days isn't art. It's pretentious crap so if I was to care if games were art or not I would prefer not.

I do not want games to be become pretentious drivel, while "art" critics ponder the meaning of why player is dressed in army boots and a pink dress (too much dead rising 2).

Edit number 2. In your OP you never put even one argument forward that we should care if games should be considered as art, just that we should care.

You personally don't need to explore something artistically for it to be art. But I don't think you realize how important the social status of "art form" is to a medium. You know why you enjoy Fight Club more than, say, Eragon, or your average soap opera? It's because Fight Club is artistically superior (I know artistic superiority is subjective, but this is a rather generally accepted viewpoint). Whether you actually explore or understand it as such, you do have to recognize that its artistic quality is the reason you enjoy it so much. Were it worse in that regard (with a bad story, cheesy writing, or bad acting), you would not like it as much, because it would not be as good. Whether you look at something as art or not, your enjoyment of it is dependent on its artistic quality.

As for your first edit, consider that film is art. Meaning Fight Club is art. If that is pretentious drivel... well, it's not.

What you are talking about is "high art;" a vain concept soaked in hubris and clung to only by those who demand superiority in their area of interest. But that is not what art is.

As for my OP, I meant to argue it once I got some responses. Putting your entire argument in your opening post encourages people to spend their entire first posts trying to tear apart your argument rather than addressing the topic, which distracts from the issue at hand. I have now fixed it by adding Scobie's Rant, because it says it just as well as I ever could.

So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?

... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

 

[dorkette1990]

It's very important to ME that games be judged as art because I am an artist FOR games.... I wouldn't like to think that all my time-consuming animations and carefully considered compositions and designs were nothing more than paint on a binary wall... if that makes sense.

 

[Thaius]

No, it doesn't bother me, because I like games because they're fun.

If some wanker with an Arts degree wants to proclaim all games as Art and are the most culturally influencing thing since berets, black framed spectacles and turtlenecks that's fine with me, just please stop fucking telling me about it.

And here I thought the most important aspect of society was its ability to govern.

For one, I never said art was the most important aspect of society, but it is pretty dang important. A basic understanding of sociology reveals this much. If you're going to try and effectively undermine my argument, don't twist it.

More importantly, you don't need to appreciate games as art. That's fine if you don't. But not caring about it effectively means you don't care about the advancement of the medium. Video games are going somewhere, and to only care about your personal enjoyment is to not care about where that is, or how the medium will get there. Even if you don't personally care about artistry in games, if you have any affection for the medium you should care about the public perception. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech]

 

[Thaius]

So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?

... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]

As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.